Evolution & Racism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

hgomez -> Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 7:11:09 PM)

I was reading an article about racism and evolution. I found this interesting article about it. They actually put a human with an ape in a cage to demonstrate evolution. Makes one wonder what would happen if the black community rose up to challenge evolution being taught in schools.

http://www.christiannation.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=2098927&categoryId=185812



rgod -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 7:23:08 PM)

hgomez,

The christian community has in large part stood against evolution. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but has it ever occured to you that the christian community includes black people and that black christians have been standing up against this along with white christians - not only because of the racist implications, but more importantly because of the fact that it denies the existence of a Creator?

rgod



hgomez -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 7:33:25 PM)

Why yes that is true. But I would think that when it comes to ending racism from society, the teaching of evolution in our schools would be a top issue, up there with reparations, affirmative action, etc. Maybe it's me but I don't hear much about the issue.



rgod -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 7:38:13 PM)

I agree that you don't hear a lot about it. But there are a lot of things within the black community that aren't publicized because the larger community does not deem it newsworthy. But, I can tell you that, because a large percentage of black people are Christians, in my experience, I've found that many disagree with evolution. While in the larger media, you might hear more about issues that impact daily life (like unemployment or wrongful incarceration), that doesn't mean that people agree with it.

I do agree with you that I don't hear evolution linked with racism often. I've heard it mostly from people who are studying it at the university level. (I edited a doctoral dissertation by a black female christian professor a few years ago that dealt with this very issue - it was very eye opening. She had a horrible time getting it through the committee (the university was secular and fairly liberal and my hunch is that they had some problems with her ideas - but she got it through praise God.). But I've personally been a number of bible studies and heard preachers speak against evolution from the pulpit - primarily because it denies the existence and creative power of God.

hgomez - I'm going to be up front with you and say that I feel like I have an idea of how this thread is going to go ... I'm going to be watching to see if somehow Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson's names get brought up here and to see if it degenerates into some sort of racial thing that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I've seen it happen time and again in other sections of this forum which is why I hesitated to even to respond to your question. I really hope this doesn't happen, but I'm just not optimistic about it. But, hope springs eternal. So, we'll see how it goes.

Hopefully you'll get substantive answers to your question.

God bless,

rgod



gluadys -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 8:43:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hgomez

I was reading an article about racism and evolution. I found this interesting article about it. They actually put a human with an ape in a cage to demonstrate evolution. Makes one wonder what would happen if the black community rose up to challenge evolution being taught in schools.

http://www.christiannation.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=2098927&categoryId=185812


First let's note that this occurred in 1906.

Next let's note that racism existed long before 1859. It is to be expected that when racists interpreted evolution through racist lenses, it looked racist.

Third, we need to note that one very of how evolution worked that was popular at the time was "orthogenesis" which basically means evolution in a straight line. It was thought that species were striving toward increasing perfection. Applied to humans, white supremacists naturally promoted the idea that whites had moved closer to some unstated ideal of perfection with Asians and Orientals somewhere behind them and Blacks well behind just in front of the gorillas.

Orthogenesis as a model of evolution was discarded by the 1950s as incompatible with the evidence that evolution is cladistic, not orthogenic. That is why the history of evolution (phylogeny) is depicted as a tree not a ladder.

The evidence that supports cladistic (branching) evolution also falsifies the idea that species are striving toward complexity and perfection. It falsifies the idea that one species is "more evolved" than another. It most certainly falsifies the idea that different human communities can be ranked as nearer to or farther from gorillas or chimpanzees. All human communities are equally distant from our nearest animal relatives: just as you and your siblings are all equally distant from your cousins.

It would be false to history to say that the idea of evolution has never been used to support racism; just as false as to say the bible has never been used to support racism.

But it is also false to say the science of evolution supports racism; just as it is false to say the teachings of the bible actually support racism.



hgomez -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 9:32:24 PM)

But according to the article...

quote:

As recently as 2004, the book “Race: The Reality of Human Differences” by Vincent Sarich, a Berkeley emeritus anthropologist, and Frank Miele, editor of Skeptic magazine, essentially categorizes people by race, thus creating a racial hierarchy. The bottom line: if man evolved then so did the races.


What Darwin a "white supremist"?
quote:


At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1874, p. 178)



ianz -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 10:25:22 PM)

Look this is ridiculous. You're using examples from 100-150 years ago to suggest that the theory of evolution as it stands now is racist. What Darwin said then was incorrect, but hardly surprising given the prevailing understanding at the time.

Besides, it's not like Christians get the moral high ground when we look back at historical events. Anyone can look back 100-150 years and find something abhorrent (especially when they choose to take it out of context). Whether it is still relevant today is an entirely different matter.

Regards, Ian



gluadys -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/6/2008 10:28:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hgomez

But according to the article...


A book is not science. And anthropologists are not biologists. Genetically (and therefore in terms of evolution) there are no human races.


quote:

What Darwin a "white supremist"?



In the same sense as Abraham Lincoln was. You would be hard put to find any white man in 1874 who was not racist by our standards. It doesn't mean he was right on that score any more than the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther was right. None of us is perfect, and good people and smart people often have bad as well as good ideas.



hgomez -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 1:30:52 AM)

You're right. I wouldn't want to you to judge Christianity based on, say the Crusades, let alone the rude Christian who is your next-door-neighbor... and it's fair that Darwinism shouldn't be wholly judged on it's racists beginnings or my rude Darwinist neighbor.

However... (and you knew there was a however coming) I submit that Darwin was more inclined to link the ape as the predecessor to man because of the black man. And that shows today with nearly every drawing that depicts the evolving man which looks like a morph between a black man and primate.

Can I ask you this... during the coarse of our evolution, did we start our with dark skin or light skin?

How is it that humans were not separated long enough to form species, but they must have been separated to form different skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, heights, etc. Correct? What defines a species anyhow?

So just so I am clear, there are primate species but only one human species?



gluadys -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 7:50:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hgomez
However... (and you knew there was a however coming) I submit that Darwin was more inclined to link the ape as the predecessor to man because of the black man. And that shows today with nearly every drawing that depicts the evolving man which looks like a morph between a black man and primate.


That could well be. Also he tended to accentuate phyletic change over cladistic speciation and that emphasis suggests orthogenesis or a "progressive" tendency in evolution which has since been discarded as having no scientific base.

quote:

Can I ask you this... during the coarse of our evolution, did we start our with dark skin or light skin?


Depends on what you count as the starting point. At what point in our history did our ancestors lose a significant bodily hair covering. Modern primates like gorillas and chimpanzees have a light skin except where it is not protected by hair. So we can likely set the development of dark skin to coincide with the loss of thick bodily hair. And we don't know just when or why that occurred. If, as some speculate, it was related to adaptation to savannah life and bipedalism, it could have occurred during the evolution of the Australopithecines, even before any species of Homo existed at all.

In that case, the first Homo sapiens would have been dark-skinned.

quote:

How is it that humans were not separated long enough to form species, but they must have been separated to form different skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, heights, etc. Correct?



Yes, there must have been some isolation, just not enough for a long enough time to erect true reproductive barriers. Apparently there has not been sufficient isolation for humanity to even generate a ring species.

quote:

What defines a species anyhow?


Good question. There is no one definition that fits all cases. Taxonomists use a combination of morphological, behavioral and genetic data. In sexually reproducing populations the willingness and ability to choose mates across populations is a major criterion.

quote:

So just so I am clear, there are primate species but only one human species?


Yes. "Primate" is a group that includes lemurs, tarsiers ("lower primates") and monkeys as well as hominids. "Hominids" include all the ape species: baboons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees as well as humans. "Hominines" includes all species, living and extinct, of the genus Homo. As it happens, there is only one living species of Homo. If we still shared the planet with other populations of Homo, we might be debating whether "human" included all of them or only our own species.



Jhud -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 11:27:12 AM)

One interesting thing about evolution as a theory is that it seems adept at taking old ideas (racism, eugenics, atheism) and giving them the patina of 'science'.



drj11 -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 11:32:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

One interesting thing about evolution as a theory is that it seems adept at taking old ideas (racism, eugenics, atheism) and giving them the patina of 'science'.


Religious fundamentalism does it better. Fact and reason are no match for a brain already warped by it. It can justify any self serving evil notion you want it too, and pretty much has at one point or another.



gluadys -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 11:34:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

One interesting thing about evolution as a theory is that it seems adept at taking old ideas (racism, eugenics, atheism) and giving them the patina of 'science'.



Rather, racists, eugenecists and atheists are adept at twisting evolution to make it appear to support their prejudices. A solid understanding of evolution shows that the eugenics movement of the early 20th century could not have worked. And it is inconsistent with racist assumptions. Nor does it provide support for any metaphysical stance (atheism/theism).



Method -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 11:46:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

One interesting thing about evolution as a theory is that it seems adept at taking old ideas (racism, eugenics, atheism) and giving them the patina of 'science'.


One thing interesting about ID is that it takes religious dogma and gives it a patina of science.



Jhud -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 11:56:57 AM)

quote:

Religious fundamentalism does it better. Fact and reason are no match for a brain already warped by it. It can justify any self serving evil notion you want it too, and pretty much has at one point or another.


Yes, evolution is very much like some religious notions in this respect.



Jhud -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 11:58:08 AM)

quote:

One thing interesting about ID is that it takes religious dogma and gives it a patina of science.


Which wouldn't constitute a contradiction of my statement about evolution; glad we can at least agree on that.



Jhud -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 12:00:31 PM)

quote:

Rather, racists, eugenecists and atheists are adept at twisting evolution to make it appear to support their prejudices. A solid understanding of evolution shows that the eugenics movement of the early 20th century could not have worked. And it is inconsistent with racist assumptions. Nor does it provide support for any metaphysical stance (atheism/theism).


Well, no, historically the overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists accepted at one time the scientific validity of eugenics, and most evolutionary biologists now accept atheism as part and parcel with their evolutionary beliefs - these aren't simply small fractions of adherents.



drj11 -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 12:42:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Religious fundamentalism does it better. Fact and reason are no match for a brain already warped by it. It can justify any self serving evil notion you want it too, and pretty much has at one point or another.


Yes, evolution is very much like some religious notions in this respect.


Ah, yet another rephrasing of the old "evolution is a religion" canard. You are smart enough to know that isn't true, and I'm tired of replying to it so I'm not going to bother.



Jhud -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 12:45:49 PM)

quote:

Ah, the old "evolution is a religion" canard. You are smart enough to know that isn't true, and I'm tired of replying to it so I'm not going to bother.


Well, I was suprised you made the comparison; I was simply agreeing.



unclemonkey -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 12:51:33 PM)

ORIGINAL:ianz
quote:

Look this is ridiculous. You're using examples from 100-150 years ago to suggest that the theory of evolution as it stands now is racist.

I wonder if Nazzism isn't racest. It's been a long time since Hitler died.



gluadys -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 1:02:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Rather, racists, eugenecists and atheists are adept at twisting evolution to make it appear to support their prejudices. A solid understanding of evolution shows that the eugenics movement of the early 20th century could not have worked. And it is inconsistent with racist assumptions. Nor does it provide support for any metaphysical stance (atheism/theism).


Well, no, historically the overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists accepted at one time the scientific validity of eugenics,


True, but they would not be able to do so with today's understanding of genetics or evolution.

quote:

and most evolutionary biologists now accept atheism as part and parcel with their evolutionary beliefs



Their beliefs, yes, but if they are honest, they recognize that their beliefs are not assured by either theory or evidence.



Method -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 1:05:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, no, historically the overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists accepted at one time the scientific validity of eugenics, and most evolutionary biologists now accept atheism as part and parcel with their evolutionary beliefs - these aren't simply small fractions of adherents.


Humans had been practicing eugenics for millenia. How else do you think we developed all of those domesticated animals and cultivars?

It's not a question of "would artificial selection work on humans". We know it would work. The question is "should we do it". The theory of evolution is completely silent on the matter, just as the theory of atoms was silent on the issue of whether or not to explode an atomic bomb over Hiroshima.



Jhud -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 1:14:53 PM)

quote:

Humans had been practicing eugenics for millenia. How else do you think we developed all of those domesticated animals and cultivars?

It's not a question of "would artificial selection work on humans". We know it would work. The question is "should we do it". The theory of evolution is completely silent on the matter, just as the theory of atoms was silent on the issue of whether or not to explode an atomic bomb over Hiroshima.


All of which would simply verify my original statement.



Jhud -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 1:17:04 PM)

quote:

True, but they would not be able to do so with today's understanding of genetics or evolution.


Method says they would. He's an evolutionist.

quote:

Their beliefs, yes, but if they are honest, they recognize that their beliefs are not assured by either theory or evidence.


So you are saying that a number of evolutionary biologists are simply dishonest?



Method -> RE: Evolution & Racism (5/7/2008 1:26:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

One interesting thing about evolution as a theory is that it seems adept at taking old ideas (racism, eugenics, atheism) and giving them the patina of 'science'.


Is this a tacit admission that a science is more trustworthy than religion? Afterall, if religion were more trustworthy then giving eugenics a patina of religion would make it more acceptable, right?



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI